Senator Daniel Inouye died the other day, like Judge Robert Bork, with seemingly little fanfare. Now, had they been hippy-rock stars or Hollywood-types who had overdosed on this drug or that, well things would have been quite different, I'm sure.
Inouye was a Democrat with whom I often found myself in disagreement. But I
never failed to respect the man--his honor, his integrity, his courage. (Again,
perhaps it says more about us that we lionize Kennedy--in fact all of them--and
turn to Bill Clinton for endorsements rather than good, decent men like
Inouye.) Inouye was on the Senate Watergate Committee, serving with dignity and
insight. He also took on Irangate. And, if you remember, when nobody else
would accept the defense of a Senate colleague accused in the Abscam scandal,
Inouye took on the job. As a point of personal courage and integrity, it is
mindful of John Adams defending the British soldiers in their Boston Massacre
trial. Here is one of the few op-ed pieces I've seen on the death of Inouye;
it's a good one.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/the-inouye-bob-dole-connection-6b834gf-184113311.html
I also like the tribute to Senator Philip Hart, the real "Conscience of the Senate."
Friday, December 21, 2012
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Robert Bork
Robert Bork died today. Few may remember he was the Reagan appointee to the Supreme Court so vociferously (and I'm being kind!) by the Democrats. His nomination was rejected by the Senate, much, I think, to our detriment.
He was a brilliant man, perhaps far too conservative for some. But in reading a few of his books, particularly The Tempting of America, I was struck at how much he was teaching from those books. Reading them reminded me of being in some of my classes at Amherst. I found my own thoughts and views being challenged--from a book.
His nomination was rejected, in large part, due to the efforts of Ted Kennedy, that scumbag of scumbags. No, Ted Kennedy wasn't the Lion of the Senate, as he was so erroneously portrayed in his last days and at his death. How quickly people forgot the little things, like Mary Jo Kopechne's death. Kennedy's opposition to Bork was equally scummy. One of the things he brought up was Bork's speaking engagements, engagements for which he took money while he was a federal appellate judge. "Unethical!" among other things was the indictment. Bork kept quiet and only later did it come out that his wife had cancer and was undergoing treatments. The health insurance had run out and he was giving speeches to continue the treatments. Yep, let's put that one in the same category as, say, "Mary Jo Kopechne."
The Democrats went to their black constituents, namely their black ministers, and spread lies about Bork and urged the ministers to spread those lies to their congregations during Sunday services/sermons. Yep, tell me how dishonest and immoral the Republicans are again.
I read a book about the nomination of Judge Bork. The author, in his forward, admitted he went into its writing with a bias, against Bork. It didn't take long before the author changed his mind and discovered a good man, an honest man, although one with whom he disagreed.
Gee, I wonder if we'll order flags flown at half mast, like we did for Whitney Houston? Shame on me.
He was a brilliant man, perhaps far too conservative for some. But in reading a few of his books, particularly The Tempting of America, I was struck at how much he was teaching from those books. Reading them reminded me of being in some of my classes at Amherst. I found my own thoughts and views being challenged--from a book.
His nomination was rejected, in large part, due to the efforts of Ted Kennedy, that scumbag of scumbags. No, Ted Kennedy wasn't the Lion of the Senate, as he was so erroneously portrayed in his last days and at his death. How quickly people forgot the little things, like Mary Jo Kopechne's death. Kennedy's opposition to Bork was equally scummy. One of the things he brought up was Bork's speaking engagements, engagements for which he took money while he was a federal appellate judge. "Unethical!" among other things was the indictment. Bork kept quiet and only later did it come out that his wife had cancer and was undergoing treatments. The health insurance had run out and he was giving speeches to continue the treatments. Yep, let's put that one in the same category as, say, "Mary Jo Kopechne."
The Democrats went to their black constituents, namely their black ministers, and spread lies about Bork and urged the ministers to spread those lies to their congregations during Sunday services/sermons. Yep, tell me how dishonest and immoral the Republicans are again.
I read a book about the nomination of Judge Bork. The author, in his forward, admitted he went into its writing with a bias, against Bork. It didn't take long before the author changed his mind and discovered a good man, an honest man, although one with whom he disagreed.
Gee, I wonder if we'll order flags flown at half mast, like we did for Whitney Houston? Shame on me.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Tue Eve Musings
After about 11 hours (4 last night and 7 today) of grading finals, I'm taking a break. I'll just finish later this evening or, more likely, tomorrow AM.
Hey, after dinner tonight I actually read the sports section! Yep...... I found out some things I didn't know. The Lions lost Sunday. I guess they were smacked around pretty well/good. I didn't even think of them, being in Las Vegas. Of course, last week they were on prime time Sun eve, but I opted to watch Miracle on 34th Street (the original!) instead--good choice. BTW, I heard some guy as I was flipping through the radio on the way home from classes today. He was either reading from someone else's op-ed piece or voicing his own view. He bemoaned watching some NFL game, asking ESPN to "give me back those four wasted hours of my life." Hey, why did the guy bother to watch? Or, why didn't he just stop watching? Back to the sports section, the Tigers signed a pitcher to some $16,000,000 a year contract--for five years, I think. C'mon! Give me a break. I think he's slated, according to the article, to be the fourth or fifth starter. (In a similar, but funny vein, I read an online article about the rich and famous. No, I don't know why. But this one family, with a home of 31,000 sq ft--you read that right--is adding on to the home because, as the article noted, it "needed the room." True story......) And some U of M football player, "basically a good person," was suspended from the team's bowl game for "violations of team rules." This "basically a good person" was also suspended from the team in 2010 and 2011. Yeah, right......
Some sociologist or psychiatrist on the radio this AM noted that the recent spate of mass shootings have been done by young men who expect things to be given to them and, when things aren't given to them, they resent it and react. Boy, we might have big problems ahead! What young men today don't expect to be handed things without earning them or working for them? Isn't that the tenor of today's society--give me what other people have earned? Don't make me work for anything? (That reminds me of a very smart colleague of mine who insisted, years ago, parents' mantra had become, "Give my kid a good grade, but don't make him work for it.") How are we going to instill the idea of working, of earning, to get things after several decades of give-aways? I understand, although I don't capitulate, students who are upset with bad grades in my classes, even when they do little or nothing. They've never had to work before, never had to earn their grades before. Why should things be different now?
I heard a caller on another show, maybe Bill Bennett's?, note that 40 and 50 years ago, kids went outside to play, at the park or playground, in the yard, on the street. Now, he said, kids go home from school and immediately turn on the video game or some other electronic device. Kids don't learn to interact with people/other kids. Another caller talked about "The Peter Pan Syndrome" among our young adults--they don't want to grow up. Growing up entails facing responsibilities, failing and having to get up and go at it again, looking out for others instead just oneself. Hmmmmmm...... That's worth some thinking, isn't it?
I'm still laughing, although it hurts, at the state legislature. Because of the results of Proposition 2, the house and senate (and governor) felt compelled to enact a "right-to-work" law. That's because "the voters indicated what they wanted and we're giving that to them." Yet, the Lansing Loons voted for another emergency manager law, after the voters rejected it in the election. I guess the legislators and governor know what the voters want better than the voters themselves. If all this weren't so serious and potentially damaging to self-government, it'd be funny to watch the hypocritical Republicans steal pages from the hypocritical Democrats' playbook. And, anyone who doesn't see this is either a hypocrite, too, or very dense. Maybe, though, they are just arrogant elitists.
I wonder about those pro-choice people. It seems to me those who are "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion are very much "anti-choice" when it comes to gun ownership and schools. So, I guess, a mother can choose to kill her unborn baby, but can't choose what school her born baby can attend? Need I say anything about guns and abortion?
Mitch Rapp. Jack Reacher. John Puller. Are there any better characters out there today? Rizzoli and Isles (in the novels, not the boob tube show) and Myron Bolitar (and his sidekick Win) are close runners-up.
Out to bake blueberry/banana muffins. Ashley says, "I love to bake!" If time, maybe Bopper and I can go for a walk--a mile or two in the dark to see the Chris lights.
Terras Irradient.
Hey, after dinner tonight I actually read the sports section! Yep...... I found out some things I didn't know. The Lions lost Sunday. I guess they were smacked around pretty well/good. I didn't even think of them, being in Las Vegas. Of course, last week they were on prime time Sun eve, but I opted to watch Miracle on 34th Street (the original!) instead--good choice. BTW, I heard some guy as I was flipping through the radio on the way home from classes today. He was either reading from someone else's op-ed piece or voicing his own view. He bemoaned watching some NFL game, asking ESPN to "give me back those four wasted hours of my life." Hey, why did the guy bother to watch? Or, why didn't he just stop watching? Back to the sports section, the Tigers signed a pitcher to some $16,000,000 a year contract--for five years, I think. C'mon! Give me a break. I think he's slated, according to the article, to be the fourth or fifth starter. (In a similar, but funny vein, I read an online article about the rich and famous. No, I don't know why. But this one family, with a home of 31,000 sq ft--you read that right--is adding on to the home because, as the article noted, it "needed the room." True story......) And some U of M football player, "basically a good person," was suspended from the team's bowl game for "violations of team rules." This "basically a good person" was also suspended from the team in 2010 and 2011. Yeah, right......
Some sociologist or psychiatrist on the radio this AM noted that the recent spate of mass shootings have been done by young men who expect things to be given to them and, when things aren't given to them, they resent it and react. Boy, we might have big problems ahead! What young men today don't expect to be handed things without earning them or working for them? Isn't that the tenor of today's society--give me what other people have earned? Don't make me work for anything? (That reminds me of a very smart colleague of mine who insisted, years ago, parents' mantra had become, "Give my kid a good grade, but don't make him work for it.") How are we going to instill the idea of working, of earning, to get things after several decades of give-aways? I understand, although I don't capitulate, students who are upset with bad grades in my classes, even when they do little or nothing. They've never had to work before, never had to earn their grades before. Why should things be different now?
I heard a caller on another show, maybe Bill Bennett's?, note that 40 and 50 years ago, kids went outside to play, at the park or playground, in the yard, on the street. Now, he said, kids go home from school and immediately turn on the video game or some other electronic device. Kids don't learn to interact with people/other kids. Another caller talked about "The Peter Pan Syndrome" among our young adults--they don't want to grow up. Growing up entails facing responsibilities, failing and having to get up and go at it again, looking out for others instead just oneself. Hmmmmmm...... That's worth some thinking, isn't it?
I'm still laughing, although it hurts, at the state legislature. Because of the results of Proposition 2, the house and senate (and governor) felt compelled to enact a "right-to-work" law. That's because "the voters indicated what they wanted and we're giving that to them." Yet, the Lansing Loons voted for another emergency manager law, after the voters rejected it in the election. I guess the legislators and governor know what the voters want better than the voters themselves. If all this weren't so serious and potentially damaging to self-government, it'd be funny to watch the hypocritical Republicans steal pages from the hypocritical Democrats' playbook. And, anyone who doesn't see this is either a hypocrite, too, or very dense. Maybe, though, they are just arrogant elitists.
I wonder about those pro-choice people. It seems to me those who are "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion are very much "anti-choice" when it comes to gun ownership and schools. So, I guess, a mother can choose to kill her unborn baby, but can't choose what school her born baby can attend? Need I say anything about guns and abortion?
Mitch Rapp. Jack Reacher. John Puller. Are there any better characters out there today? Rizzoli and Isles (in the novels, not the boob tube show) and Myron Bolitar (and his sidekick Win) are close runners-up.
Out to bake blueberry/banana muffins. Ashley says, "I love to bake!" If time, maybe Bopper and I can go for a walk--a mile or two in the dark to see the Chris lights.
Terras Irradient.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Politics, Not Economics
As if the hypocrites in Lansing needed anything to show that they are, well, hypocrites consider this.
The state legislature and governor rushed through the "right-to-work" law. One of their reasons was to "follow through" on the Nov. 6 "mandate" of the people in defeating the "collective bargaining" proposition. In other words, the legislature was merely following the wishes of the people, as indicated in the election.
So, then, why did these same people rush through an emergency manager law? The voters, on Nov. 6, shot down the old emergency manager legislation by rejecting that proposition. Hmmmmmm......
Apparently there is a bit of a disconnection in deciphering the "people's will." And who said, "We are doing this for Michigan." No, no...politics had nothing to do with either piece of legislation.
And, remember, this is a lame duck session. Why do they never seem to be in any kind of a rush during the rest of the year? As I said before, a pox on both of their houses. Throw all the bums out!
The state legislature and governor rushed through the "right-to-work" law. One of their reasons was to "follow through" on the Nov. 6 "mandate" of the people in defeating the "collective bargaining" proposition. In other words, the legislature was merely following the wishes of the people, as indicated in the election.
So, then, why did these same people rush through an emergency manager law? The voters, on Nov. 6, shot down the old emergency manager legislation by rejecting that proposition. Hmmmmmm......
Apparently there is a bit of a disconnection in deciphering the "people's will." And who said, "We are doing this for Michigan." No, no...politics had nothing to do with either piece of legislation.
And, remember, this is a lame duck session. Why do they never seem to be in any kind of a rush during the rest of the year? As I said before, a pox on both of their houses. Throw all the bums out!
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Honesty and Tolerance
This, from a blog by Burton Folsom, historian and author of several books including FDR Goes to War: "Historian Betty Glad, who wrote Charles Evans Hughes and the Illusions of
Innocence, began her research 'with an investigation of Hughes’s public
statements, which were then checked against his private papers for possible
discrepancy between his public and private views. None was discovered. . . .'
Imagine that—what Hughes said and believed in private is what he said and
believed in public."
"Imagine that," indeed! What's the old line? "When can you tell if a politician is lying? When he moves his lips."
Folsom goes on to note that, with some notable exceptions, US History was filled with leaders who were honest, men of integrity--until the 1930s. It was FDR, that darling of US History textbooks, who broke that mold, as well as broke the "No Third Term" tradition. Roosevelt openly campaigned, promising again and again, on a 25% reduction in federal spending--that is, to cut taxes to increase spending and alleviate the Depression. But what he said publicly and in private were two different things. And, when he was elected, as we all know, he dramatically increased government spending, much to the detriment of any recovery of the Depression. What he did publicly was what he said privately, not publicly.
That started the litany of politicians, from both parties, of making promises of "giving things" to potential voters. You know, Romney wasn't far off the mark in his assessment of his loss and Obama's win. And, to their shame (although I know there is no shame any longer), other Republicans criticized Romney for his post-election comments. It was yet another sign of Republican wimpiness, wimpiness that has been evident for the past couple of decades. And, remember, I am not a Republican. But this, more than the oft-quoted excuses by the so-called political experts (boy, isn't that an oxymoron!), is why the Republicans fail more often than they should.
Is there any less tolerant institution in the US than education? Of course, we all know how it is in public schools, where criticism or contrary ideas are met with scorn. Even questioning the often idiotic programs and policies will bring labels that are close to black-balling. But even consider what are supposed to be the bastions of free speech, the marketplace of ideas and free expression--the colleges and universities. At the University of Michigan, many times conservative professors have indicated how their ideas are treated with scorn, not tolerated. And the U of M is not the only place where unwelcome speakers--mostly conservatives--are prevented from speaking, either by shout-downs or even no invitations in the first place. This is the place that has a professor who claims that any sexual relations between men and women, even married couples, is "rape." According to George Will, an Indian university "convicted" one of its students for reading a book that had a cover some other students found offensive. The cover portray Klansmen in full regalia, although the book tells the story of the Klan's defeat at the hands of Notre Dame students back in the '20s. Apparently someone's sensibilities were offended and the university administration came down on this reading student for "openly reading a book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject." (Yes, folks, these are the types of people running our schools and they have been for decades.) A few years ago, a local community college professor was disciplined for using the word "niggardly" in class. Despite the fact that the word has no derivation or reference to race, some students found the term "offensive." They obviously didn't know the meaning of the word, which again has nothing to do with race. So, instead of castigating the students for their ignorance, the professor was punished. Whatever happened to the concept of "free exhange of ideas?" It has disappeared, overwhelmed by the new principle that no students are ever to have their sensibilities offended (even if those sensibilites are flawed or based on ignorance) or challenged. This disappearance, I think, goes a long way to explaining where American society is today. More on that in a near-future blog....
"Imagine that," indeed! What's the old line? "When can you tell if a politician is lying? When he moves his lips."
Folsom goes on to note that, with some notable exceptions, US History was filled with leaders who were honest, men of integrity--until the 1930s. It was FDR, that darling of US History textbooks, who broke that mold, as well as broke the "No Third Term" tradition. Roosevelt openly campaigned, promising again and again, on a 25% reduction in federal spending--that is, to cut taxes to increase spending and alleviate the Depression. But what he said publicly and in private were two different things. And, when he was elected, as we all know, he dramatically increased government spending, much to the detriment of any recovery of the Depression. What he did publicly was what he said privately, not publicly.
That started the litany of politicians, from both parties, of making promises of "giving things" to potential voters. You know, Romney wasn't far off the mark in his assessment of his loss and Obama's win. And, to their shame (although I know there is no shame any longer), other Republicans criticized Romney for his post-election comments. It was yet another sign of Republican wimpiness, wimpiness that has been evident for the past couple of decades. And, remember, I am not a Republican. But this, more than the oft-quoted excuses by the so-called political experts (boy, isn't that an oxymoron!), is why the Republicans fail more often than they should.
Is there any less tolerant institution in the US than education? Of course, we all know how it is in public schools, where criticism or contrary ideas are met with scorn. Even questioning the often idiotic programs and policies will bring labels that are close to black-balling. But even consider what are supposed to be the bastions of free speech, the marketplace of ideas and free expression--the colleges and universities. At the University of Michigan, many times conservative professors have indicated how their ideas are treated with scorn, not tolerated. And the U of M is not the only place where unwelcome speakers--mostly conservatives--are prevented from speaking, either by shout-downs or even no invitations in the first place. This is the place that has a professor who claims that any sexual relations between men and women, even married couples, is "rape." According to George Will, an Indian university "convicted" one of its students for reading a book that had a cover some other students found offensive. The cover portray Klansmen in full regalia, although the book tells the story of the Klan's defeat at the hands of Notre Dame students back in the '20s. Apparently someone's sensibilities were offended and the university administration came down on this reading student for "openly reading a book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject." (Yes, folks, these are the types of people running our schools and they have been for decades.) A few years ago, a local community college professor was disciplined for using the word "niggardly" in class. Despite the fact that the word has no derivation or reference to race, some students found the term "offensive." They obviously didn't know the meaning of the word, which again has nothing to do with race. So, instead of castigating the students for their ignorance, the professor was punished. Whatever happened to the concept of "free exhange of ideas?" It has disappeared, overwhelmed by the new principle that no students are ever to have their sensibilities offended (even if those sensibilites are flawed or based on ignorance) or challenged. This disappearance, I think, goes a long way to explaining where American society is today. More on that in a near-future blog....
Monday, December 3, 2012
Sometimes I Just Wonder...
...what kind of people make decisions that affect all of us. Recently the US Court of Appeals ruled that part of Michigan's bottle/can deposit law is unconstitutional. The state law requires that bottles and cans be identified as being sold in Michigan, for purposes of the bottle deposits. I guess there was some Steinfield episode that mocked this?????? Well, I hope there is a Steinfield episode that mocks this decision.
I guess the court's opinion mentioned something about only nine states have bottle/can deposit laws. What does that have to do with anything? Haven't these Constitutional dolts heard of the 10th Amendment? Oh, I forget, judges are now on the benches to impose their own views of what is best or not best. With all the crap/litter on the roads with the deposit law on the books, imagine how much more trash would be out there without it! If you can't imagine, go to Indiana, for one place, to see.
And what does a "Michigan" label on a bottle or can have to do with restraint of interstate commerce? Maybe our cars should no longer have "Made in Highland Park, Illinois" labels. Maybe there shouldn't be any sales taxes. Don't they restrain trade by increasing the prices?
The best part was the suggestion that, instead of having the "Michigan" imprint, to ensure bottles weren't coming from other states, those without deposits, consumers could "save their receipts." Yes, the dolts actually wrote that!
And, I still wonder at our members of Congress who define a "spending cut" as, not actually decreasing spending, but just not increasing it as much as planned. That is, if the original increase in spending was to be 20%, but the actual increase is only 15%, that's considered a cut. Huh? That leads one to ask the question, "When is a 'spending cut' not a 'spending cut?'" As noted in a recent column, that's akin to saying, "I wanted to gain 20 pounds, but I only gained 10. Therefore I lost 10 pounds." Yeah, "lost ten pounds" even though I now weigh ten pounds more than I did.
Will the baseball Hall of Fame voters select the "roid" abusers like Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, and others? Who knows, although an informal poll showed none are likely to be inducted? I laugh when I hear about "the integrity of the game." Ha Ha. Where is the integrity with ten minutes between innings for television commercials? Where is the integrity of the game when the owners made millions off of gate receipts from people coming to watch the druggies? Do they have to give back the profits? Where is the integrity of the game concerning championships? Will pennants and titles have to be taken down and returned if these druggies contributed to those championships? After all, since they are Hall candidates, they must have played pretty big roles. Where is the integrity of the game when players sign here and sign there, barely getting their bags unpacked before leaving for more money elsewhere? "Integrity of the game?!?!?!" Ha Ha, what a joke!
I guess the court's opinion mentioned something about only nine states have bottle/can deposit laws. What does that have to do with anything? Haven't these Constitutional dolts heard of the 10th Amendment? Oh, I forget, judges are now on the benches to impose their own views of what is best or not best. With all the crap/litter on the roads with the deposit law on the books, imagine how much more trash would be out there without it! If you can't imagine, go to Indiana, for one place, to see.
And what does a "Michigan" label on a bottle or can have to do with restraint of interstate commerce? Maybe our cars should no longer have "Made in Highland Park, Illinois" labels. Maybe there shouldn't be any sales taxes. Don't they restrain trade by increasing the prices?
The best part was the suggestion that, instead of having the "Michigan" imprint, to ensure bottles weren't coming from other states, those without deposits, consumers could "save their receipts." Yes, the dolts actually wrote that!
And, I still wonder at our members of Congress who define a "spending cut" as, not actually decreasing spending, but just not increasing it as much as planned. That is, if the original increase in spending was to be 20%, but the actual increase is only 15%, that's considered a cut. Huh? That leads one to ask the question, "When is a 'spending cut' not a 'spending cut?'" As noted in a recent column, that's akin to saying, "I wanted to gain 20 pounds, but I only gained 10. Therefore I lost 10 pounds." Yeah, "lost ten pounds" even though I now weigh ten pounds more than I did.
Will the baseball Hall of Fame voters select the "roid" abusers like Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, and others? Who knows, although an informal poll showed none are likely to be inducted? I laugh when I hear about "the integrity of the game." Ha Ha. Where is the integrity with ten minutes between innings for television commercials? Where is the integrity of the game when the owners made millions off of gate receipts from people coming to watch the druggies? Do they have to give back the profits? Where is the integrity of the game concerning championships? Will pennants and titles have to be taken down and returned if these druggies contributed to those championships? After all, since they are Hall candidates, they must have played pretty big roles. Where is the integrity of the game when players sign here and sign there, barely getting their bags unpacked before leaving for more money elsewhere? "Integrity of the game?!?!?!" Ha Ha, what a joke!
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Electoral College
There was a good op-ed piece in the newspaper by a columnist from the Washington Post. It was good because it once again demonstrated the situation ethics/principles of many progressives. First, the guy used the results of the Electoral College to claim that Americans want the federal government to do what Obama is doing. He pointed to the 332-206 Obama margin, if not a landslide, then at least a sizable win. How convenient to use the Electoral College results this way! That 100+ vote margin shows what the vast majority of Americans want. Gee, these progressives were whistling a far different tune in 2000 when their guy, Algore, won the popular vote, but lost in the Electoral College. Yep, it was a far different tune back then. And, how convenient to ignore the popular vote this time, the difference less than 2%! Hmmmm.... That's a majority, but hardly a significant one.
And, I know what people will say when I write this (oh, how I know!). I am not at all convinced the election was tainted by fraud, a lot of it. Logic tells me that suburban precincts in Ohio, in Virginia, and elsewhere did not vote 100% for Obama, as reported. You mean, Romney didn't get a single vote in some suburban settings? I'll never believe that. And how odd the screams about voter fraud were deafening in 2000. I'm not saying Obama wouldn't have won anyway; I don't know. I am saying I fully believe there was fraud. Of course, I can't prove it.
And, I know what people will say when I write this (oh, how I know!). I am not at all convinced the election was tainted by fraud, a lot of it. Logic tells me that suburban precincts in Ohio, in Virginia, and elsewhere did not vote 100% for Obama, as reported. You mean, Romney didn't get a single vote in some suburban settings? I'll never believe that. And how odd the screams about voter fraud were deafening in 2000. I'm not saying Obama wouldn't have won anyway; I don't know. I am saying I fully believe there was fraud. Of course, I can't prove it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
